Torts

civil wrong

Torts, in common law jurisdictions, are civil wrongs which unfairly cause someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm.

Quotes reported in James William Norton-Kyshe, The Dictionary of Legal Quotations (1904), p. 234-38.

The general principle is, that in order that an action may be maintained in this country in respect of a tort committed outside the jurisdiction, the act complained of must be a wrongful act, both by the law of this country and by the law of the country where it was committed; but it is not necessary that it should be the subject of civil proceedings in the foreign country.

Lopes, L.J., Machado v. Fontes (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. D. 543.

To entitle a plaintiff to maintain an action, it is necessary to shew a breach of some legal duty due from the defendant to the plaintiff.

Erie, C.J., Cox v. Burbidge (1863), 13 C. B. (N. S.) 436.

That great principle of the common law which declares that it is your duty so to use and exercise your own rights as not to cause injury to other people.

Surely every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing, and it is impossible to prove the contrary; for a damage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when a man is hereby hindered of his right.

La ley est un egal dispenser de Justice, et ne relinque aucun sans remedy sur son droit, sans son propre laches: The law is an equal dispenser of Justice, and leaves none without a remedy, for his right, without his own laches.

An injured party may proceed in Westminster Hall notwithstanding any order of the House.

Willes, C.J., Wynne v. Middleton (1745), 1 Wils. 128.

If a man sustains damage by the wrongful act of another, he is entitled to a remedy, but to give that title two things must concur, damage to himself and a wrong committed by the other. That he has sustained damage is not of itself sufficient.

Bayley, J., R. v. Commissioners of Pagham (1828), 8 B. & C. 362.

Actual perceptible damage is not indispensable as the foundation of an action; it is sufficient to show the violation of a right, in which case the law will presume damage.

I am not able to understand how it can be correctly said in a legal sense, that an action will not lie even in the case of a wrong or a violation of a right, unless it is followed by some perceptible damage which can be established as a matter of fact; in other words, that injuria sine damno is not actionable. On the contrary, from my earliest reading I have considered it laid up among the very elements of the common law, that wherever there is a wrong there is a remedy to redress it; and that every injury imports damage in the nature of it; and if no other damage is established, the party injured is entitled to a verdict for nominal damages.

I know of no duty of the Court which it is more important to observe, and no powers of the Court which it is more important to enforce, than its power of keeping public bodies within their rights. The moment public bodies exceed their rights] they do so to the injury and oppression of private individuals, and those persons are entitled to be protected from injury arising from such operations of public bodies.